Abellanosa: Human rights versus human lives

HIGHLIGHTING his unwavering commitment to fight illegal drugs President Duterte has said another controversial statement: “[y]our concern is human rights, mine is human lives.”

Like a lightning rod, Duterte’s play of words has generated a lot of discussions and arguments. Philosophical and even religious views have been posted all over social media either for or against the statement.

Pitting life and right is apparently twisted. No matter how bold the assertion, its value is no more than rhetorical. Staunch supporters of Digong would certainly love the tirade as it gives headache to his opponents. Seriously though, is there really a distinction between human rights and human lives?

We must come to our senses that if there is anything common between the two terms or concepts, it is none other than the word “human.” The word human in both human rights and human lives basically tell us that life and right are concepts that properly belong to the human person. Human life is essentially distinct and of higher value in comparison to other life forms precisely because it is that of a human person. Rights too are important because they are basic entitlements (not just privileges) that properly belong to the same human person.

By contrasting human rights and human lives, Duterte exposed his confusion. In saying that he is more concerned with “life” he seems to suggest that “rights” are associated with criminals. Though unsaid, the president seems to read things this way: victims killed by the criminals were deprived of their life and not their rights. His logic, in effect, leads people to believe that we should choose either right or life. That for this country to be peaceful and orderly, we have to sometimes violate rights and thus save lives. Worse: those who are concerned with human rights see less value in the lives of those who were killed.

This entire line of thinking is not only philosophically flawed. It also lacks goodwill. Anyone who insists that one should value either right or life lacks intellectual earnestness. For when we analyze, we read things as a continuous or connected whole. We see the value of things only in connection and in relation to one another. An honest interpreter of reality should read reality reasonably. Unfortunately, we have a president who presents to us a distorted interpretation of things and thus paint a picture according to his desired output.

There is no question that life is important. Because it is important then it must be defended. Life in this sense is a universal concept, that is, the life of every man and therefore of any man. Precisely, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has made it clear that we are all born equal regardless of color, creed, or gender. Given that life is important then it is an inherent entitlement. It is a natural right to live. To live in this world is something that each and every person deserves. To live and breathe is something which one can continue doing even without a government permit or approval.

In certain cases though one may be deprived of this life. But because it is a right, then it cannot be deprived automatically. This is where the concept of rights should be highlighted. A right cannot be deprived immediately without moral and legal justification. Any immediate deprivation of life is a violation – not only of the rights but of humanity itself. In this light, the right to due process becomes indispensable.

The supporters of Digong and all those who follow his logic have forgotten that genuine human rights advocacy does not insist in the absoluteness of life. What is objectionable from the viewpoint of human rights is when the manner used circumvents the law. That by doing so, the person is not given the opportunity to defend himself.

I am sure however that the defenders of Duterte has a rebuttal in mind. They, for sure, would argue this way: we ask the State or the police to observe human rights, but we are not telling the criminals to do the same? I guess this is where we may need another round of discussion: on the distinction between crime and human rights violation, and thus of the human being as a biological person and the State as a juridical person/political fiction.

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph